Nov 4, 2016

"TERF" was always going to go mainstream

So, Glamour went there. It printed a piece in which women are called "TERF".

It was inevitable that the word "TERF" will become mainstream. The feminists slammed with this "description" are the most unforgivable of activists: women who stand for women, as women, and women only. Women wihout a modifier, women as members of no class other than their own, women as completely divorced from any political association with men.

To cover its own profound and endemic misogyny, the Left allows certain kind of feminist activity - anti-racist, anti-homophobic - to flourish, so long as the gains from that activity are likely to benefit some men, too. And of course anything that might benefit some men in practice ends up benefiting mostly men - advantage flows up the power gradient, that's not news to anyone.

Radical feminism doesn't operate within that narrowly permitted sphere. It kicks at the traces: it says no, women as women and women only and with no relationship (mother, sister, daughter) or affiliation (black, gay, poor) with men of any kind we are worthy of political consideration, we have interests, we have rights, we have power, we have thoughts and talents and capabilities and we. Are. Oppressed. As women.

That a "women's" magazine (in reality, a publication whose aim and purpose is to inform the subordinate class about the terms on which its subordination is to be carried out) should be among the first mainstream media organs to legitimise a word that is used as a cover for lurid fantasies about inflicting snuff-like violence on these insubordinate, obstinate, monstrous women who continue to insist that "women" means something and that women matter, is not surprising. It's not even ironic. It's completely predictable.

Women's magazines exist to tell us what we are not allowed to be. Fat. Hairy. Ugly. Old. Ambitious. That a women's magazine should take it upon itself to thickly hint that one additional thing we are not allowed to be is partisans for our own political class - that we are not, in fact, allowed to insist that we are members of a political class that really exists and has a right to organise and agitate on its own behalf - is one hundred percent in accordance with the mission statement of such a publication. In a world in which it has become socially gauche to tell women outright that feminism will be stigmatised and punished, a workaround has been found: narrow the definition of permissible feminism down such as to exclude almost all serious political activity, then call women who don't conform names.

Oh but it's not a slur, says the (soon to be rather beleaguered I think) intern in charge of Glamour's Twitter account. It's a description. Well, "fat" is a description too. "Ugly" is a description. "Manhater" is a description. "Spinster" is a description. "Nasty woman", of course, is a mere description. I don't know quite how to break it to people whose jobs, ostensibly, are to choose and use words, but: how you choose to describe someone matters. And you've chosen to describe women in the oldest, hoariest way possible: as hateful harridans, eldrich witches whose inattention to men and their needs makes them a legitimate target for both symbolic and actual violence.

95 comments:

Hello! I'm not actually an intern, I'm the social media editor. Glamour commissioned Juno Dawson's excellent column for a reason, and the office (almost entirely made up of women) is delighted to support her columns and the exceptionally moving way that she documents her transitioning journey.

I'm sorry you feel this way about women, and wish you the very best. Kat Brown

"I am sorry you feel this way about women"... says the woman who is being swamped by women telling her that the language her magazine is using (commissioned?) is dehumanizing to women and promotes violence against us.

You do know, that the criticism is not about your writer writing for your magazine at all, right? Don't make this about something it is not. Don't hide behind false premises.

The backlash you are facing right now is about your magazine, Glamour Magazine, associating itself with violence against women and girls.

Just to clarify, are you sorry I feel that women are a legitimate political class? Or are you sorry I feel that women should be protected from hate speech?

I mean, I'm not /surprised/ you, as an employee of a publication founded on woman-hating, are sorry that I feel women don't deserve to be hated - but given that that was what my whole blog was about, I am a little puzzled that you felt the need to come all the way over here just to confirm I'm right.

Still, thanks all the same. Given you're a lot more senior than you give the impression of being, your confirmation is very welcome for my credibility.

I want to know this, Kat Brown from you and from that magazine: do you also agree that 'women should die in a fire'? do you also agree that women don't have a vagina, but 'a front hole' and that only men who get an inverted penis - not a vagina - are allowed to say that that is 'a vagina'? those who insult women for stating the reality are those who promote, support and popularize political violence against women, especially the women they can't subjugate. 'terf' is the new 'whore'. 'terf' is a term which has no relation to reality in the first place. feminists are not here to accommodate women to patriarchal demands. we are here to destroy patriarchy, not reproduce it under as more gender diverse, but destroy it. you, on the other hand, serve patriarchy and have no right to tell women anything at all. men who want to be seen as 'women' are not feminists, therefore, radical feminists can't exclude them because there is nothing to exclude. they want to infiltrate women's spaces, invade their spaces, colonize their bodies and their political voices and, yes, punish them if they don't submit. they are promoting a militarized behavior which is alien to women and to feminists. they are aggressors and invaders, maybe you need a word to state this reality. therefore, 'terf' is a word invented by men to be used as an instrument to politically attack women. women are not the toys of patriarchy, and they are not persons which can be constructed by men in a lab. patriarchy knows this very well because they exploit women to perpetuate the economic power of male supremacy. you serve that power. women are persons, political persons under patriarchy, which fight to end the oppression they endure because male supremacy is a political and economic system of power built on exploiting women. you serve the interests of rich men who reduce women to objects and instruments which can be used and replaced according to their interests. you also support the sexual slavery of women, because those who say 'terf' are very much a political arm of the patriarchy in promoting and legalizing and expanding the sexual slavery of women and girls. you support hatred of women because you have been taught that in hating women you get more privileges from the patriarchy. you do not promote any feminism, but your own privileges. in this, you are not sorry. you are glad. those privileges are an illusion though, and they are paid by women with their real life. you betrayed women. women know what they are. they don't need a man in dress to teach them what they are and what they must do. funny how it's always some man in a dress teaching us how to 'be women'.

You heard it here first. Kat Brown, social media editor of Glamour UK, supports the right of male people to unilaterally define feminism and invade women's personal boundaries at their whims. She also supports their right to throw misogynistic slurs freely at women without consequence.

Meanwhile, women who ask for personal space, ask for their sexual orientation to be respected, or insist on the relevance of biological sex in their own life experience, become hateful bigoted "TERFs".

Kat, how much research into radical feminism have you actually done? I suspect part of Glamour's misstep here is being woefully uneducated on the issue.

And Now apparently Bono of the Rock Band U2 is also a woman without the claim of being trans gender. He still considers himself a heterosexual man but, Glamour magazine gave him Woman of the Year award in 2016. In 2014 it was a trans MtF actor Laverne Cox won Glamour mag's award Woman of the Year. Glamour mags woman of the year in 2015 was trans MtF reality tv show character once olympian athelet Caitlyn Jenner and this year it's Bono. I wonder what happened to all those women born women in the world who are doing great works in science and human rights and so on went. I guess their now confined to the dust bin of history and so it goes for women.

"you support hatred of women because you have been taught that in hating women you get more privileges from the patriarchy. you do not promote any feminism, but your own privileges. in this, you are not sorry. you are glad. those privileges are an illusion though, and they are paid by women with their real life. you betrayed women"

And yet, if Glamour had published a piece celebrating TERFs, you'd be french kissing their ass right now.

Funny how you guys never gave a crap about Glamour until it pointed out what slime you all are. :P

Hello Kat, I am really puzzled by your "I'm sorry you feel this way about women" comment. I think it's a good thing not to want misogynist slurs used against women - it rather suggests one likes, as opposed to hates, them. To be honest, if I worked for Glamour I wouldn't dare raise my head above the parapet for fear of damaging my career. One of the many, many reasons I'm glad I don't.All the best in your career, though. Victoria Smith.

The term TERF literally stands for "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist". And it was created by a cis woman radical feminist, because radical feminism is generally trans-inclusionary, and they wanted a term to separate TERFs from the normal radical feminist.

So if you wanna explain how that's in anyway a "misogynistic slur", I'm all ears.

"Tranny" originated from within the trans community. Good to know it's not a slur and it's free for everyone to use freely, with as much vitriol as they like. /s

Also, what the originators of "TERF" meant, and the sense of radical feminism usually being "trans-inclusionary", is not the same sense in which "TERF" and "trans-inclusionary" are used today. Most any RF is considered a TERF these days, as is any lesbian or anyone who thinks biological sex exists.

Yes, that is correct. Men cannot be radical feminists, and saying you know several reveals your ignorance of radical feminism. Radical feminism is concerned with the oppression of women as a sex class, not a gender class, and therefore does not care about men's feelings.

"Yeah, no. That's not how it works. White people don't get to use the N word, no matter HOW many people of color use it. Grow up."

This just makes Cheryl's point. As the oppressor class, men, including transwomen, do not get to name us.

"Yes, that is correct. Men cannot be radical feminists, and saying you know several reveals your ignorance of radical feminism.

Yeah, no. I know several men on the internet that claim to be radical feminists.

"This just makes Cheryl's point. As the oppressor class, men, including transwomen, do not get to name us."

The only problem with that argument is that (1) trans women are not men (and no, that's no longer up for "debate") and (2) men (or trans women) did not come up with the term. It was invented by a cis female radical feminist named TigTog.

So on all counts, you fail. Which doesn't surprise me much. TERFs have been failing for years.

"I mean, if your argument was that TERFs WEREN'T radical feminists who are trans exclusive, that would at least be a (incorrect) defense."Yeah, you're wrong immediately. You're not even responding to the actual arguments. Radical feminism is a movement for the liberation of females. Transmen ARE included because they are female. Transwomen are not because they are male (they are not being excluded, it's simply not what it's for). This may help clarify:https://rebeccarc.com/2016/11/01/the-word-terf/

Radical feminists define women as adult female humans, which is exactly how the word has been used for centuries and still nearly always is. Transwomen are male. This would still be factually true even were their brains actually in some way cross-sexed, which is actually very much open for debate and further research. Therefore defining them as 'women' would require a redefinition of terms, and it would be simply incorrect to treat them as identical with females (why would they have to be? It would surely form its own unique category).

Men can claim to be radical feminists all they like, they are not, women define this not them, this is our movement. They do not get to speak over the oppressed class.

Oops! You fail again. "Radical Feminism" is in fact trans-inclusive, because trans women are women. Only TERFs (a group given that term BY cis female radical feminists to separate their raving from trans-inclusive radical feminism) reject trans women.

It's always amazing how little so many of you self-proclaimed "radfems" seem to know about the actual history of radical feminism.

YOU are not trans. You do not get to "debate" our existence. That debate is LONG over. So it's time for you and your bass-ackward movement to move along. Because feminism neither wants or needs you anymore.

-- ""Radical Feminism" is in fact trans-inclusive, because trans women are women. Only TERFs (a group given that term BY cis female radical feminists to separate their raving from trans-inclusive radical feminism) reject trans women."

I'm afraid that's not true. The acronym was invented by a tweeter called Sabine, who is a trans woman and a person of colour. You can go & find her on Twitter and ask her yourself, although I would imagine if she got wind of the fact you've been giving credit for her invention to the radical feimnists she hates so much, you'd get a well-deserved earful.

I'd like to ask everyone to take this as a closing note on this argument. Nobody is convincing anybody, everyone is getting nasty, & frankly I'm not crazy about this kind of pointless sniping being given a platform on my blog. I hope you will all respect my wishes in this matter. Thanks, M.

Thanks for participating in my little experiment, Anonymous (brave, that, by the way - very Free Speechy). You have helped me demonstrate two key point that support the thesis of my original blog:

1. The word "TERF" is the short skirt of ht einternet. Once a woman has been tagged with it, not boundary violation against her is considered out of line.2. That some people who represent themselves as advocates for trans rights have no respect for women's boundaries or preferences, and in fact demonstrate glee in the face of deliberately violating women's consent, even in small matters.

Well, and also that you're an asshole who snipes at people & calls them names hidden behind anonymity, then Sea Lions all over the shop about fwee speech. But that was more of an observation than a thesis, really.

Hi Kat- I have also blogged and complained. Juno Dawson's column was actually not excellent, by any objective measure, repeating as it does the tiredest of tropes. The misogynist language is unforgivable. Women are telling you, but you are not interested. I challenge you to think whether you would respond in this way to any other group. Paki is an unacceptable abbreviation. Spastic too- once used, no now more. Terf? 'Stfu women and best wishes'

a 'women's magazine' in the old sense of pre-feminist superficialities directed at women to inculcate patriarchal sex-roles and beauty standards. if Glamour ever attempted to rise above that history they now sink again into the swamp of misogyny and self-hatred. feminists need to remember our history, and tell 'Glamour' STFU and good riddance, they are showing their true colors and are not a 'women's magazine' in the sense of the diverse feminist magazines, newsletters and journals, now blogs, that are an authentic and vibrant part of our culture.

You aren't "protecting women from hate speech" you're actively promoting it. Take a moment and search the term "TERF", and you'll see the pure poison used to try and silence women using shame and literal threats of violence. Regardless of your opinion, it's alarming that you're participating in this age old witch burning.

Hi Kat. Thank you for responding to Marina's blog.I haven't read the column in question (though I have read other of Juno's less problematic columns in Glamour) but I am extremely disturbed to hear that you have printed a column with the word 'TERF'. 'TERF' is a descriptive word only in the sense that 'witch' was used descriptively in the 1600s - ie, it was used against women who could not reasonably be described in that way as well as those who could, and it was used by many in a hateful way to justify violence (I assume you are aware of the many posts and tweets on the internet threatening rape, burning and worse to 'all TERFs'). To use it in a mainstream magazine legitimises the term (just as it would legitimise those who use 'Paki' for hate speech if I insisted on using it to describe Pakistani friends - and they would quite rightly have a problem with me doing this).If you consider yourself a feminist, I think you need to think very carefully indeed about whether you really want to continue using the term. One thing is for certain, I won't be allowing the magazine in my house or for my daughter to have access to it, as long as this continues, any more than I would allow a magazine with explicit racism or homophobia. Best wishes, Katharine

I am one person, in one role, so I can't speak on behalf of British Glamour. However, I know how proud we all are to have Juno Dawson writing for us, and sharing her journey so honestly and with her usual typically great writing.

I find it difficult to understand why TERF in itself is a slur. TERF is an acronym of trans-exclusionary radical feminist. It is what you are.

I am sorry to hear of threats on people at any time, but I question whether the threats you talk about extend into real terms in the same way the trans community experience. I would consider being insulted by TERF to be a much lesser problem than the vast number of abusive acts and murders that have been inflicted on the trans community.

Lastly, I take great pride in being a feminist, and a woman, and I am delighted that "woman" can be extended to anyone who honestly identifies as such.

Hi Kat.Firstly, 'TERF' is used all the time against women who could not by any stretch of the imagination be called radical feminists. Secondly, the fact that trans people suffer abuse does not make other forms of abuse ok. All hate speech and abuse is wrong. There are no Oppression Olympics.

Can you name a woman, TERF or otherwise, who has committed an act of violence or murder against a member of the trans community? As it is, violent men who attack the trans population are mentioned only once, very obliquely, in the article under discussion ("I really really wouldn't feel safe peeing in a men's bathroom."). Perhaps these men would be a better target for your activism.

Hi Kat, Trans-exclusionary is a redundant epithet when applied to radical feminism, which by definition excludes males. Use of the term terf is invariably an indicator of ignorance, intolerance and abuse. As you consider yourself a feminist I suggest you engage in some research on the term, and on radical feminism. I would also urge you to steer away from comments such as 'it's what you are'; I think that's a contentious logic to apply, and one which I imagine you wouldn't apply to other groups. Would you use that statement to agree that a trans-woman is a male or man in a dress I wonder, or in relation to a descriptor of race/other protected characteristic. Regards, Claire

Katherine's example of "Paki" is also an abbreviation of the neutral term "Pakistani", so by the logic of Kat Brown, it must be neutral and descriptive as well? "Tranny", "jap", and "abo" must also receive her approval, I guess? When did this "abbreviations are automatically disqualified as slurs" rule come about, Kat Brown?

Yes, "TERFs" have been assaulted in real life by trans women, actually. It isn't too hard to find information on this if you actually care to try. There have been far more instances of "trans woman on woman" violence than there have of "woman on trans women" violence, and to a much greater degree. Do you have any knowledge of a SINGLE murder or sexual assault committed by a "TERF" against a trans woman? I doubt it. The violence committed against the trans community is committed by men. Identify as you will, blaming women for male violence is not a feminist act.

Trans women physically attacked radical feminists at the Portland Conference for Social Change in 2013. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/21/55123

Trans women behaving predatorily towards women at Michfest, a now-defunct radical womyn's festival that trans women were asked not to attend. Incidents include trans women exposing their penises to unconsenting women and following a woman around after dark to jeer, "how does it feel to be the last one out late at night". https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/who-are-the-males-who-sneak-into-michigan-womens-music-festival

I personally know a radfem who was brutally attacked in, yeah, a bathroom because she did a talk about PCOS, and the mere act of talking about female bodies was upsetting to a trans woman in the audience who caught up with her later. She was hospitalized and a police report was filed, but decided not to get involved in an investigation because she didn't want to have to keep reliving the trauma of the attack. You'll probably say this never happened, much like rape apologists say that unreported rapes never happen, but it's not like there haven't been other cases of people being brutally attacked by trans women over similarly minor "offenses": http://www.wfmj.com/story/33628915/suspect-says-transgender-reaction-led-to-hermitage-walmart-shooting

Of course you will dismiss and minimize these reports because they don't fit your narrative, so this is a pretty pointless exercise. In reality, radical feminists are not the ones putting out a deluge of tweets and posts talking about how great it would be to rape and kill trans women. The current culture of trans activism actively encourages and glorifies violence against feminists, and that violent culture is escalating. It's only a matter of time until someone gets killed. When that does happen, I hope you will step back and take stock of your position, rather than celebrating the death of someone who sees gender in a different way.

...Of course... if you use the word "TERF" to describe anyone male or female who believes in biological sex, which it seems that you do (based on your other posts in this thread), there have already been many murders and sexual assaults committed by trans women against "TERFs", including the man I already linked. This is good evidence that TERF is a slur. You want to use the strict definition when we're talking about violence committed "A to B", but when we're talking violence committed "B to A", suddenly the "B" group gets so much wider. Funny that. Shifting goalposts to serve your agenda. There is little hope for you, then. You know exactly what you're doing with the word "TERF" and it is entirely intentional.

Clearly, labelling random men as radical feminists just because they disagree with you would be absurd, but "TERF" obscures the supposed meaning just enough that you can get away with it.

"Funfem" might not be a nice word, but I've never seen a radfem say things like:

- "kill every fucking funfem"- "do you know a funfem? cave their head in with a rock"- "shoot a funfem today"- "I want to set every single funfem on fire"- "if I ever find out you're a funfem I will fucking kill you every single funfem out there needs to die"- "funfems can choke on my girldick"

These are all real quotes btw. I challenge you to find the funfem versions online! I've also never seen radical feminists explicitly target the group they see as "funfems" for violence. Never seen radfems try to push into recreational "funfem" spaces for no other reason than to ruin them. I've never seen posts where radfems fantasize about raping "funfems".

If you are offended by the term "fun feminist" you have absolutely no grounds to give "TERF" a pass. The difference in degree here is ridiculous. "Oh, so you're offended by the word 'bitch' but you throw around terms like 'poop head', what a hypocrite". Seriously?

For instance, did you know a TERF once threatened to "throw lye" in my face if she ever caught me or another trans women in a women's restroom? And that she would (and I'm quoting) "laugh while your skin peeled off"?

I've hear TERFs claim they would carry guns and "shoot first and ask questions later" at anyone in a restroomwho looked like a trans women.

Kat Brown: Even in the dystopian universe of big-but-dying media TERF is going too far. You are the first of the big slicks to fling that particular piece of feces, and it stinks worse than synthetic perfume. The whole purpose of your sexist magazine is to sell cosmetics and make women insecure about their appearance. Nobody thinks you are feminist except your delusional selves. Nonetheless you jumped the shark here.

As explained in the article, witch and ugly are just descriptions but the way they are used makes them loaded. Same with terf. In a sentence it's usually alongside something like 'die in a fire'.

If you are such a fan of calling things what they are, are you comfortable describing (or thinking of) transwomen are biologically male? Do you think it's ok for lesbians not to have sex with a penis? Do you think a rapist who transitioned while incarcerated should not be put in women's prison? Any of these thoughts makes you a terf.

"So, Glamour went there. It printed a piece in which women are called TERF"

No, be honest. It's not that "women" are being called TERFs. It's TERFs being called TERF.

See, the women that they were refereing to in the article are ones who espouse radical feminist theory as an excuse to exclude trans women from the larger group "women". In short, they're trans-exclusionary radical feminists. You know, what "TERF" stands for?

Let's stop with the "TERF is a slur" crap, okay? The label "TERF" is not a insult.

It's their behavior that's the insult. It's their hatred that's the insult. It's their attempts to deny trans people our civil rights that's the insult.

Right now, a bunch of you so called "feminists' are teaming up with anti-woman, anti-LGBT conservatives, JUST because they support keeping women like me out of the restroom. In short, they're about the most loathsome group of slugs I can think of. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for them because they're labeled "TERF" (a term created by a cis woman radical feminist, by the way)?

"See, the women that they were refereing to in the article are ones who espouse radical feminist theory as an excuse to exclude MEN from the larger group "women".

FIFY

How dare those women exclude those men from the movement for women!!! How dare they recognise women as being female!!! You are not a woman, do not speak for us. That was the whole problem with the article.

Anonymous, your hatred of women is blatant. Why are you so insistent on using women's safe spaces? It's because the real threat comes from homophobic and violent men. Deal with the problem, and stop taking out your anger on women simply because they want to stay safe. As for Glamour mag-it's banned from my home. The comments by Kat are disgusting.

For the moron copy/pasting stories about Christopher Hambrook, it might be nice for you to mention that he is NOT a trans person, never WAS a trans person, and freely admits it himself.

OR that Richard Rodriguez isn't trans either, and the article doesn't make the claim he is.

Or the fact that NONE of your examples over at GenderTrender are of actual trans women assaulting cis women in actual restrooms or locker rooms. None of them.

Just for the record, a sad handful of cherry-picked cases that happened decades ago, happened not in restrooms or locker rooms, or weren't perpetrated by trans people do not count. And YET, it's always the best you clowns can come up with.

That isn't data. Data would be collected records from cities, states, school districts and business showing that trans people present a threat to cis people. too bad for you, the data is not on your side::

It's also worth noting that not only do these reports prove that a trans person has never molested a woman in a restroom or locker room, but that trans-inclusive restroom laws cause no discernible rise in "potty pervert cis men" cases, either.

Anon @ 6:19, it's funny that YOU fail to address the fact that, under "identity-based legislation", there is no way for anyone to accurately distinguish between Christopher Hambrook & co and a "real trans person". There is no technology that exists to measure a person's inner "gender identity", if such a thing exists. If your stance is that anyone who identifies as trans is trans, then Christopher Hambrook must be let into women's shelters if he says he's a woman. And this is a problem that trans activists consistently fail to address. Nobody in the real world cares if they are "true trans" or not, because it doesn't actually matter. Women are getting raped and assaulted because of these policies.

Anon @ 6:19, it's funny that YOU fail to address the fact that, under "identity-based legislation", there is no way for anyone to accurately distinguish between Christopher Hambrook & co and a "real trans person".

You don't need to "accurately distinguish" because it's STILL very much against the law to molest someone. As Hambrook found out.

"Women are getting raped and assaulted because of these policies."

Yeah, no. Hambrook is the ONLY case in all of existence where this happened. And it's worth noting that this happened in Canada, not America. And that the fault could equally be on the shelter for not provided adequate security and protections for clients of the shelter.

Homeless shelters (where this case took place) are NOT exactly bastions of safety to begin with. And if you wanna push to make them more safe, I gots no problems with that.

But you're gonna have to do it in some way that doesn't discriminate against trans people. Cuz that doesn't fly anymore.

Radical Feminism means something.It is a political philosophy, not an identity.If you do not accept Radical theory, you can not simply say "I'm a Radical Feminist.' Radical Feminism is based on the concept of class structural analysis. If you do not understand or accept class analysis, you are not Radical.Woman is defined by Radical Feminists as a sex class of adult human females who are oppressed based on their biologic sex which results in a universal and subliminal socialization as subordinate beings. Female socialization teaches gender performance roles, which Radical feminists have fought against for 40+ years.There is no such thing as a Radical Feminist who believes men can become women through surgery and artificial hormones because Radical Feminists understand 'woman' is much more than gender performance roles. Sex is the basis of female oppression and it is impossible to separate class analysis from Radical Feminism.

Darn straight it is. More and more people are becoming knowledgeable and accepting of trans people and our rights. We've made AMAZING strides in the few years. And I see us making even more progress in the future. It's a great time for trans people and our allies.

However, I suspect that's not the "peak" you were hopping for, is it? :P

Thank you for this critique of Glamour's use of the term "TERF." I feel it is irresponsible to use any term that is used habitually by males to disempower and threaten women. It is irresponsible to use a label that its targets, members of an oppressed group (females) express rejection of. This term is also often coupled with the acronym "SWERF" another pejorative term used to attack those who reject commercial sexual exploitation. These are code words and dog whistles which signal males in particular to target people for harassment, threats and more. The use of these terms thus silences women, who already have a very diminished public voice. It is thoughtless, irresponsible and signals to young readers that they must agree with male-bodied arbiters of femaleness, or else. This is the same message that the beauty industry promotes (meet our male-centred standards or else), so perhaps it is not a surprise that it is so palatable to Glamour.

Generally the word TERF is what follows a death or rape threat on Twitter. That's the only context I have for that offensive word. I won't be reading a magazine that perpetuates and encourages violence against women.

"Generally the word TERF is what follows a death or rape threat on Twitter."

Yeah, suuuuure. Trans women don't threaten rape. And I've SEEN what passes as "violence" against TERFs:

TERF: OMG, you guys!! Trans women are SO violent. They got caught throwing a half-eaten burrito at a TERF for no reason!!

Trans Woman: Umm, that woman who had a burrito thrown was giving a transphobic lecture. And the thrower was never actually identified as being trans. But I DID read about a trans woman who was literally curb-stomped in the face for being trans the other day...

TERF: You trannies are such drama queens! The amount of violence against you is always over-exaggerated!

I'm not trying to speak for all women. I'm speaking as a woman and I'm saying that the use of the term TERF is offensive and shouldn't be entertained by mainstream media. I, and other women, have said that. That should be enough. Why is it okay to offend women?

Women have every right to speak for themselves. This doesn't mean we're claiming to speak for all women. It's not as though the trans activist movement has taken a poll of all womankind on whether TERF is a slur or not. Most women don't even know what it means until they get labelled with it, usually for being a lesbian or a woman who said something about her period.

The article is grossly offensive. A man telling women how to do feminism, complete with slurs. Juno transitioned less than a year ago and before that was an out and proud gay man. Shame he didn't stay like that. He knows about as much about feminism as my gecko.

On top of that, though less important, is that painfully evident fact that Juno Dawson can't write. The quality of the article like, dismal, like. I can only deduce there's a drought of transwomen authors, with commissioning editors scraping the bottom of the barrel. Glamour magazine has pissed off a huge number of women and all for the sake of appearing "progressive" (it really isn't. Men telling women how to do feminism dates back to the 60s to my knowledge.)

Juno is not a man, and it shows everything wrong about your particularly abusive form of "feminsm" in one shot when you talk like that.

Trans women are women and we're here to stay. We're not going ANYWHERE, and sooner or later, you're gonna have to learn to deal. Cuz that's the only "option" you have left.

You know, it's so sad it's almost funny. If you TERF clowns had spent the last few decades attacking the people ACTUALLY harming women (the conservative male movement) instead of crawling into bed with them in order to fight trans people, you might have actually accomplished something.

Instead, "Failure" will be the name on your movement's tombstone. And no one will shed a tear when it's gone.

As I said upthread, nobody is convincing anybody here, spirits are getting high & namecaling is beginning to be employed. I think we should break up this party now rather than try to re-litigate half a decade of online arguments in the comments section of one obscure blog. Thanks for all your contributions, but that's enough now. Unless you have a new comment to make specifically on the body of the original article, please refrain from commenting. I hope you can all repsect my wishes in this respect. Thanks, M.